Talk:Unnamed Nebula class starships
Nameless hulk vs. USS Melbourne The ship I saw was clearly a Nebula-class (without a recognizable label). The Melbourne is an Excelsior-class starship. This can never be the same spaceship. So that's just proven that this wreck is not the USS Melbourne. If it is not the Melbourne so it's some nameless wreck. Or not? -- 18:07, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :See Talk:USS Melbourne and Talk:USS Melbourne/archive for past discussions on this. - 18:13, September 8, 2011 (UTC) I skimmed the article to the Nebula class. This following section has fallen into my eye.: For "Emissary", the producers decided to use the more detailed Excelsior-class studio model to represent the USS Melbourne, thus robbing the proto-nebula from its name and registry. Stock footage of the now nameless distressed model is present in the episode (seen in the window of Sisko's escape pod, just as it leaves the doomed USS Saratoga), making it the only model to appear in both depictions of the Battle of Wolf 359. So there is now a nameless wreck. So it belongs in this article. And it's probably the same ship, what I saw yesterday. :-) -- 18:14, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :That would be what common sense tells us, but unfortunately that's not what happened with this, since both ships could be a''' Melbourne. I'm for reopening this now, even though I pretty sure it will end up like the German effort several months ago. - 18:21, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::As I said back in the last discussion, my only issue was that nothing had been done here in the time between those two discussions; if we want to mention the Nebula here, I don't really have a problem with it.--31dot 20:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :::Long story short: Canon and apocrypha tells us there just were two USS Melbourne''s at Wolf 359, a production source tells us it was actually intended as a brief retcon, two completely different looking models used to portray a single ship. But majority here seems to want to invent a third option against canon, production and apocrypha: the other ship was an "unnamed ship". We all wanted to have a single article for the whole mess, but then we still seem to want to have two articles by putting the other ''Melbourne here to the "Unnamed Nebulas" page, instead of having a "USS Melbourne (nebula class)" page, like it was before the long debate started. --Pseudohuman 22:28, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::Why does this situation seem to be drawing German-speakers?(this anon's language here and elsewhere seems to have been run through a translator as well) No problem with it, of course anyone of any language can be here, just curious. I had thought we were taking the "one ship played by two models" route but apparently that was not the case. --31dot 22:39, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :To reply to Pseudohuman, I don't see how treating the Nebula-class ship as a unnamed ship is inventing anything, since what I gathered from the discussion was that the intention of the writers/producers/what-have-you was for there to only be one Melbourne at the battle, just that the class of that ship was changed between "The Best of Both Worlds" and "Emissary". If that's even remotely correct, then the Nebula-class ship couldn't be "the", or even "a", Melbourne in universe, since there was suppose to only be one, so the other one should be here. That said, since this keeps coming up, clearly this solution might need looking into. I would think that some mention of the ship should be here, even if it's only a link to the bg section of Melbourne article. - 03:36, September 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::As I stated near the end of the last discussion about this, apparently there actually isn't a consensus to not add the Nebula class hulk as an unnamed ship somewhere - that is just what a minority of people continues to claim what the past consensus has been (haven't read that outdated stuff again, but I trust myself from three months ago). If this is the case, there probably should be a mention of this hulk on this page, although the exact type of mention (in-universe or bg) could of course still be discussed. In any case, the situation seems unclear enough to not allow for simple reverts of any Nebula hulk note here. -- Cid Highwind 06:28, September 9, 2011 (UTC) ::: @ 31dot: I've used the Google translator, I'm out of practice and was also a little lazy. Based on the comments of the other user (Mark McWire) seems to have done the same. That's why I want to apologize for this clumsy tongue. I'm really just occasion spectator who has no comprehensive idea of this matter. The German language version contains this ship even as its own article, so I've changed anything there. Since I could not see any names, I assumed that the German article is "non-canon" or outdated. Someone once said in a forum that the German MA contains much crap and not be reliable. That's why I've changed nothing in German MA, and a duplicate entry (with and without name) is pointless. It seemed to me only strange that this information is missing from the much more complete English version. -- 15:07, September 9, 2011 (UTC) Same or different ship Now that we are considering the Nebula-''Melbourne'' canonical but nameless, should we consider it to be the same ship as the Surplus depot reuse, since we are considering and to be the same ships. or should we go the other way and consider the Buran and Princeton reuses as different ships. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:56, April 24, 2013 (UTC) :I could go either way on this. We know the labels weren't always updated if the crew knew they wouldn't be readable in the shot, since the Nebula-class ship in the Battle of Sector 001 was apparently the USS Leeds '''and the USS Farragut according to the labels on the model at the time. I do agree we should try to be consistent though. - 22:37, April 24, 2013 (UTC)